(Article by Katherine Watt republished from BailiwickNews.Substack.com)
I published one such exploration in November.
Nov. 16, 2022 - Some thinking about tampering with evidence and spoliation
…The main hurdles, as in all the other strategies, are the court-stripping carve-outs in which private cause of action is blocked as soon as US Government officials and military leadership are the named defendants…
The only way to move forward, it seems to me, is to have a third prong, which is an argument that the men and women doing these things are not acting in their official capacities or under color of legal authority but are rogue actors.
This is related to the other idea recently kicked around on this email thread: prosecuting Trump, Biden, Azar, Becerra, Fauci, Birx, Walensky, etc for impersonating federal officials (18 USC 912).
We need plaintiffs, fact patterns and claims that drive a legal wedge to separate the legitimate US Government and the people still operating under the US Constitution and legitimate federal laws, from the infiltrated/co-opted illegitimate US Government and the embedded agents operating as if the US Constitution has been suspended, under federal pseudo-laws through the fraudulent national emergency and public health framework.
Summarized: we need to get the US Gov in a position where it must either admit or deny that fraud + mass murder is the official, authorized policy of the US Gov., such that the identifiable people who are running the programs have recourse to legal defense services provided by the US Department of Justice, or get cut loose, declared rogue and are then opened to criminal prosecution in their personal capacities…
I explored this framing a bit more in January:
Jan. 16, 2023 - Dual-use government officials of concern
…For my own contributions to the fight against the Monster, I'm most interested in developing and supporting cases that force government defendants and defense counsel to first, admit that the evidence (the record of their public acts and documents) conclusively shows they've launched a covert war with their people, which is becoming widely seen and understood.
The government attorneys would then be compelled to choose between two defenses:
- The war on the world is legal and the use of bioweapons to carry out official, authorized duties and orders to maim and kill billions of people, is justified and endorsed by the US government as an institution.
- The war is illegal, such that the official government acts undertaken by named defendants, to conduct the war, have been done without proper authority, by rogue actors, who can and will be removed from power and tried for their war crimes.
To the extent the Department of Justice responded to a criminal prosecution of Kadlec, Azar, Gruber and Hinton by using the second argument, the war criminals would be subject to prosecution in their personal capacity, without recourse to sovereign, legislative, administrative or other immunities.
They would be cut loose from the government, and legally construed as people who committed the war crimes outside their official capacities, while impersonating federal officials, or while serving as agents of foreign invaders or occupiers.
The advantage offered by cutting the war criminals loose, is that it would leave the core governing institutions (legislatures, courts and executives) and the US Constitution intact…
In the last few days, I’ve been looking at those argument frameworks again, in terms of the products (mRNA/LNP bioweapons) as distinct from the people deploying them.
To prosecute defendants for their willed acts and omissions, the theory of the case is that the products in use are military bioweapons, not pharmaceutical drugs, devices, biologics, or vaccines; the program is a covert, state-sponsored, contract terrorism/mass murder program; and there is ample evidence to demonstrate the bioweapons were developed and deployed through military programs (not drug regulation programs) with intent to harm recipients, by named defendants in their official or personal capacities.
To defend, US Gov must take one of two positions:
- Mass murder using bioweapons is the official policy of the US Government, and officials carrying it out are fully authorized to do so, or
- Mass murder using bioweapons is prohibited under US law, and US Government officials carrying it out are rogue elements who can and should be removed from power, charged, tried and punished.
The same double-bind can be applied to the manufactured prototype products, as distinct from the people who developed, pseudo-authorized and deploy them to this day.
For the products, the theory of the case is that the products in use are bioweapons, not pharmaceutical drugs, devices, biologics or vaccines within the purview of FDA regulation.
There is ample evidence to demonstrate they were never subject to FDA procedures regulating or monitoring certified Good Clinical Practice (cGCP), certified Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP), certified Good Laboratory Practice (cGLP), certified Good Distribution Practice (cGDP), dispensing, labeling, adverse effects, etc.
To defend, the US Government must take one of two positions:
- The products are pharmaceutical drugs, devices, biologics or vaccines, but none of the FDA regulatory standards for safety and efficacy testing, manufacturing, distribution, dispensing, labeling were followed prior to dispensing and during use; or
- The products are military bioweapons for battlefield use, and none of the FDA regulatory standards for safety and efficacy testing, manufacturing and distribution were applicable, legally required or necessary for deployment on military targets.
Combined, these two challenges — to the acts of people and the use of products — place the US Government criminals in two double-binds.
Either
A. They lied, knowingly and with intent, when they told the world that the products known as Covid-19 vaccines are FDA-authorized/FDA-approved pharmaceutical products, or
B. They killed, knowingly and with intent, using military bioweapons that were never and could never be, subject to FDA pharmaceutical regulation.
The correct answer is:
C. Both of the above.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 93, Art. 3, ad. 2, cited in Rerum Novarum/On the Condition of the Working Classes, Pope Leo XIII, 1891, footnote 37.
Human law is law only in virtue of its accordance with right reason: and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law.
And in so far as it deviates from right reason, it is called an unjust law; in such case it is not law at all, but rather a species of violence.
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="584"]
The Right Hand of God Protecting the Faithful against the Demons. Painting by Jean Fouquet[/caption]
Read more at: BailiwickNews.Substack.com
Please contact us for more information.
